King v. Burwell

40 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. SNIPR Technologies Ltd. v. Rockefeller University (Fed. Cir. 2023)

    McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLPKevin Noonan Ph.D.July 17, 2023

    ng evidence that Congress did not wish to further open the interference door to pure AIA patents and applications." Under such circumstances the opinion states that "additional exceptions are not to be implied, in the absence of evidence of a contrary legislative intent," citing United States v. Smith, 499 U.S. 160, 167 (1991). The panel found "no hint of congressional intent to expose pure AIA first-inventor-to-file patents and applications to interferences" and "[t]o the contrary, the purpose and history behind the AIA reinforce our understanding of the text" that "Congress was dead set on eradicating interferences for new applications, criticizing them as lengthy, expensive, and requiring companies to maintain extensive documentation and systems to prove the date of their invention."With regard to the Director's reliance on the "any expired patent" language in pre-AIA § 135 the Federal Circuit opined that their task is "to construe statutes, not provisions," citing King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473, 486 (2015). In the context of the rest of the AIA and express recitations of Congressional intent, the opinion states it was "clear that the language 'any unexpired patent' cannot refer to pure AIA patents" because such a reading "would be inconsistent with the plain language of AIA § 3(n), which does not allow for pure AIA patents to be part of interferences, and the AIA amendments repealing interferences and the priority of invention requirement for pure AIA patents." The opinion notes that such an interpretation would "defeat a central purpose of the AIA," i.e., "to transition the U.S. patent system to a first-inventor-to-file system and eliminate the specter of interferences going forward for new applications." The panel also asserts that judicial interpretation of specific provisions in the AIA, such as AIA § 3(n) should prevail over the "general" language in pre-AIA § 135, citing Bulova Watch Co. v. United States, 365 U.S. 753, 758 (1961), and that interpreting the AIA as the Director and

  2. What Do Cancelling Student Loan Debt and Banning Noncompetes Have in Common? The Supreme Court’s Recent Student Loan Decision May Reveal How it Would Rule on the FTC’s Proposed Noncompete Ban

    Epstein Becker & GreenJuly 5, 2023

    y.”West Virginia, 597 U.S., at ___, ___ (slip op., at 28, 31) (quoting Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 267–268 (2006)). . . . The dissent insists that “[s]tudent loans are in the Secretary’s wheelhouse.” Post, at 26 (opinion of KAGAN, J.). But in light of the sweeping and unprecedented impact of the Secretary’s loan forgiveness program, it would seem more accurate to describe the program as being in the “wheelhouse” of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. Rather than dispute the extent of that impact, the dissent chooses to mount a frontal assault on what it styles “the Court’s made-up major questions doctrine.” Post, at 29–30. But its attempt to relitigate West Virginia is misplaced. As we explained in that case, while the major questions “label” may be relatively recent, it refers to “an identifiable body of law that has developed over a series of significant cases” spanning decades. West Virginia, 597 U.S., at ___ (slip op., at 20).* * * *. . . . In King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473 (2015), we declined to defer to the Internal Revenue Service’s interpretation of a healthcare statute, explaining that the provision at issue affected “billions of dollars of spending each year and . . . the price of health insurance for millions of people.” Id., at 485. Because the interpretation of the provision was “a question of deep ‘economic and political significance’ that is central to [the] statutory scheme,” we said, we would not assume that Congress entrusted that task to an agency without a clear statement to that effect.Ibid. (quoting Utility Air, 573 U.S., at 324). That the statute at issue involved government benefits made no difference in King, and it makes no difference here. All this leads us to conclude that “[t]he basic and consequential tradeoffs” inherent in a mass debt cancellation program “are ones that Congress would likely have intended for itself.” West Virginia, 597 U.S., at ___ (slip op., at 26). In such circumstances, we have required the Secretary to “point to

  3. Supreme Court To Review Critical Case on Deference to Administrative Agencies

    Perkins CoieMay 24, 2023

    examples. As of this writing, amicus curiae briefs in Loper Bright in support of the challengers to Chevron are due on June 22, 2023.Chevron said that “if the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency’s answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.”[] Now that the Supreme Court has granted review in Loper Bright, the days of statutory silence signaling an implied delegation of authority to the agency may be numbered, and the ease and permissibility of finding statutory ambiguity may be drastically reduced. Endnotes[1] 467 U.S. 837 (1984).[2] 45 F.4th 359, 363 (D.C. Cir. 2022).[3] 142 S. Ct. 2587 (2022).[4] Loper Bright, 45 F.4th at 365.[5] Ibid.[6] Id. at 374 (Walker, J., dissenting).[7] Michigan v. EPA, 576 U.S. 743, 761 (2015) (Thomas, J., concurring) (citation omitted).[8] Buffington v. McDonough, 143 S. Ct. 14, 22 (2022) (Gorsuch, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari).[9] King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473, 485–86 (2015) (citation and internal quotations omitted).[10] Justice Samuel Alito’s remarks at the Claremont Institute, 02.11.2017; see also Deference and its Discontents: Will the Supreme Court Overrule Chevron?, Congressional Research Service 4 (Oct. 11, 2018).[11] United States Telecom Ass’n v. Fed. Commc’ns Comm’n, 855 F.3d 381, 417 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc).[12] Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 2400, 2448 (2019) (Kavanaugh, J., concurring) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).[13] See Kent Barnett & Christopher J. Walker, Chevron in the Circuit Courts, 116 Mich. L. Rev. 1, 33–34 (2017).[14] 467 U.S. at 843 (emphasis added).[View source.]

  4. Major Decision for Major Questions: Supreme Court Reins In Federal Regulatory Authority

    Dechert LLPSteven EngelJuly 21, 2022

    Lung Ass’n v. EPA, 985 F.3d 914 (D.C. Cir. 2021).West Virginia, ___ U.S. at ___ (slip op. at 19).Id. at 17-20 (citing Brown & Williamson, 529 U.S. 120; Alabama Ass’n. of Realtors, 120 S.Ct. 1291; Utility Air Regul. Group, 573 U.S. 302; Gonzalez v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006); NFIB, 142 S.Ct. 661; MCI Telecomm. Corp. v. AT&T, 512 U.S. 218 (1994); King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473 (2015)).West Virginia, ___ U.S. at ___ (slip op. at 17).Id. at 19.Id. at 9-11 (Gorsuch, J. concurring).Id. at 13-15.Id. at 20.Id. at 28.NFIB v. OSHA, 595 U.S. __ (2022).

  5. Major Decision on Major Questions Doctrine, Agency Regulatory Discretion

    WilmerHaleJuly 12, 2022

    inion for the Court, written by Chief Justice Roberts and joined by the remaining five justices, declared that the “major questions doctrine” was simply a “label … refer[ring] to an identifiable body of law that has developed over a series of significant cases all addressing a particular and recurring problem: agencies asserting highly consequential power beyond what Congress could reasonably be understood to have granted.” In support, the Chief Justice supplied a catalog of prior decisions “from all corners of the administrative state,” which provides some insight into what may be a “major question,” including:Whether the FDA could regulate tobacco (FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. (2000));Whether EPA could deem greenhouse gas emissions from small stationary sources (e.g., hotels and offices) to be an “air pollutant” (Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA (2014));Whether the IRS could provide tax credits for people who enroll in health insurance plans through a federal exchange (King v. Burwell (2015));Whether the CDC could impose a nationwide eviction moratorium to prevent the spread of Covid-19 during a pandemic (Alabama Association of Realtors v. Department of Health and Human Services (2021)); andWhether OSHA could require employers with at least 100 employees to require their workers to take certain steps to prevent the spread of Covid-19 (National Federation of Independent Business v. Department of Labor (2022)).Arguably, West Virginia changes the role that the presence of a “major question” plays in judicial review.

  6. The “Major Questions Doctrine”: Another Tool to Challenge Tax Regulations?

    McDermott Will & EmeryJuly 5, 2022

    Indeed, the major questions doctrine has been applied in a tax context before. In King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473 (2015), for example, the Court applied the major questions doctrine in declining to defer to tax regulations interpreting the Affordable Care Act (internal references omitted):In extraordinary cases … there may be reason to hesitate before concluding that Congress has intended [] an implicit delegation [to the agency to fill in the statutory gaps]. … This is one of those cases.

  7. Another Defunct Small Health Insurer Fails in Challenge to ACA Risk Adjustment Rules

    Blank Rome LLPMarch 31, 2022

    This again led to unsuccessful administrative law challenges to the program.King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473, 479-84 (2015) (summarizing the background and purpose of the ACA).78 Fed. Reg. 15 , 410 , 15,419 (Mar. 11, 2013).Id. at 15,432Id. at 15,430-34.N.M. Health Connections v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Hum. Servs., 946 F.3d 1138, 1148-50 (10th Cir. 2019); Evergreen Health Coop., Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., No. 16-2039 (D. Md. Jan. 31, 2017); Minuteman Health, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Hum. Servs., 291 F. Supp. 3d 174, 198-205 (D. Mass. 2018).Vista Health Plan v. United States HHS, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 7003, *15-16, __ F.4th __, 2022 WL 807554 (5th Cir. 2022).Id.Id.Id. at *20.Id. at *22.Id.Id. at *22-23.Id. at *23.Id. at *24Id.

  8. Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2018)

    McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLPNovember 13, 2018

    The panel based its decision on the language of § 311(a), which states that "a person who is not the owner of a patent" can file a petition for IPR. This language "leaves no room for assignor estoppel in the IPR context" according to the opinion (the panel agreeing with Arista's argument in this regard) and where, as here, the statutory language is "unambiguous" the Court is obliged to "enforce it according to its terms," citing King v. Burwell, 135 S. Ct. 2480, 2489 (2015). The panel expressly rejected Cisco's argument that not applying assignor estoppel in the IPR context was inconsistent with its availability as a defense before a district court or the International Trade Commission that could result in "forum shopping," saying that this outcome was "an intentional congressional choice": Such a discrepancy between forums—one that follows from the language of the respective statutes—is consistent with the overarching goals of the IPR process that extend beyond the particular parties in a given patent dispute.

  9. Following Repeal of the Individual Mandate, Twenty States Challenge the Affordable Care Act

    Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLPMatthew GoldmanJune 18, 2018

    v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519, 558, 574 (2012). [4] 42 U.S.C. § 18091(2)(I); King v. Burwell, 135 S. Ct. 2480, 2487 (2015). [5] Complaint at 16-17.

  10. Following Repeal of the Individual Mandate, Twenty States Challenge the Affordable Care Act

    Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLPJordan GrushkinJune 15, 2018

    [3]Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519, 558, 574 (2012).[4] 42 U.S.C. § 18091(2)(I); King v. Burwell, 135 S. Ct. 2480, 2487 (2015).[5]Complaint at 16-17.